# Sugar in toothpaste!?



## MindySue (Mar 19, 2007)

About 20 minutes ago I realized I was out of my toms of maine all natural toothpaste. So I reach for my sisters crest whitening expressions toothpaste. (In the vanilla whatever you call it if you care to know) Now I don't like to use crest or really any other toothpaste company that isnt all natural, because pretty much all the regular brands are tested on animals, as they come from companies like procter and gamble. Feeling guilty, I used it, and immediately I noticed it was way sweeter than what im used to. I havent used non-natural toothpaste in over a year. I look on the back and one of the ingredients is sugar! Dear god, I know it makes it taste better (not too fond of the flavors I buy in all natural stuff but i'd rather stick it out than support the cruelty of animal testing) but why! Sugar is the stuff that is giving us the cavities! Why brush with sugar? I realize it's probably a small ammount but it still makes no sense to me. Plus, I felt I had to brush my teeth for twice as long to get them to feel as clean as they do when I brush with the natural stuff, maybe that was in my head because I knew there was sugar in it, who knows.

But to make that unnecessarily long story short, does anyone else find it stupid that toothpaste has sugar?


----------



## Aprill (Mar 19, 2007)

i didnt know sugar was in toothpaste....

as a matter of fact, here are the ingredients:

Fluoride

Antibacterial agents, most often Triclosan is used to control plaque

Desensitizing agents

Anti-tartar agents

Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)

Enzymes, to enhance the antibacterial properties of saliva

Xylitol, a non-sugar sweetener, which reduces levels of cariogenic (decay causing) bacteria in the mouth and enhances remineralization

So, that would be untrue


----------



## MindySue (Mar 19, 2007)

oh, well my toothpaste said sucralose, which is an artifical sweetener, i thought i read sucrose, but i duno i still find it weird that it has anything like that in it. my natural one tastes okay and doesnt have that in it.

also -- i know ive read before tonight that toothpastes (some) have sugar in them. oh well.


----------



## -Liz- (Mar 19, 2007)

maybe its just the flavoured ones? (you mentioned it was vanilla)


----------



## Retro-Violet (Mar 19, 2007)

good god, what else are they gonna put sugar in?!


----------



## WhitneyF (Mar 19, 2007)

No wonder we're the most obese nation in the world. We've gotta have sugar in our toothpaste! lol...


----------



## Gwendela (Mar 19, 2007)

Sucralose in noncariogenic so it does not promote tooth decay. :brsh:


----------



## daer0n (Mar 19, 2007)

I stopped brushing my teeth with toothpaste since i was like 10, and i dont have ANY cavities, however, my family has this belief that you have to brush your teeth, with toothpaste obviously, three times a day, ALL of them, have cavities but me.


----------



## SalJ (Mar 19, 2007)

Yeah it's sucralose, which is not technically sugar. Toothpaste also has sodium laurel sulphate in, I wouldn't put that on my skin so I won't put it on my teeth!!

They reckon that any bar soap is just as good for brushing teeth with, once you get use to it it's not so bad.

I've been using sensodyne and I've just found out they're owned by GSK who test on animals - it's going in the bin!

Gives me a reason to try out that toothpaste recipe!!

edited to add: hellomindy, I just read that Toms of Maine have been bought by Colgate-Palmolive!!


----------



## MindySue (Mar 20, 2007)

yep, they have. its the only natural toothpaste i can find with flouride in it though, i like to think its better than buying from colgate -palmolive themselves. but  /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" /> i duno

i like your dedication  /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />


----------



## StereoXGirl (Mar 20, 2007)

Why not use up the rest of it and then not buy it again? If you throw it away, then the animals suffered for nothing! You might as well use up what you have. The damage has already been done...


----------



## Aprill (Mar 20, 2007)

well said. We all would be surprised about some of the things that we have used as children and adults that were tested on animals. Makes no sense to use something and then find out about it and then throw it away.:kopfkratz:


----------



## MindySue (Mar 20, 2007)

yeah most would be surprised. it's a lot. it's hard to get completely away from, but it's good to try.

i just thought about it, sodium laureth sulfate!??! in toothpaste!?? that stuff is nasty for you..oh god..cant imagine putting it in my mouth.


----------



## Jennifer (Mar 20, 2007)

cool! what do you brush with then?


----------



## MindySue (Mar 26, 2007)

i wanna know too..i hate cavities!


----------



## Helen Claire (Mar 31, 2007)

Sucralose and sucrose are hardly the same thing. Have you read P&amp;G's policy on animal testing or did you just assume that they must make the little bunnies suffer because they are a big company? You can find that info here.

Also did you know that products labeled "cruelty-free" often are not so? From Kids 4 Research--Welcome:

I recommend one performs a little more research before one boycotts a product, especially a health or beauty item. Just because the animal research wasn't done by that company doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. A question: is it better to test health products on an animal or on a human? What if the product _is_ dangerous? Would it be better for a human to "suffer" than an animal?


----------



## MindySue (Mar 31, 2007)

Yeah, I know what im talking about. I do LOTS of research. Trust me. I know all about P&amp;G. I don't go by what the bottle says either, I go by websites written by people who research this stuff and actually contact the companies themselves and find out.

"would it be better for a human to "suffer" than an animal" - all suffering is equal, people are really horrible to rather have an animal suffer, they don't even get a say in wether or not they want to be tested on. humans do. i believe all living things are equal, and they suffer the same pain..so why in the world would i rather have an animal be tested on, becuase they're "lesser" than humans and arent as intelligent? no.

Also, I think it's great if people actually take the time to ponder if they should buy a product or not. even if it really is tested and says it isnt, it's still something more people should care about and no matter what degree they do it in.


----------



## reginaalear (Mar 31, 2007)

Off the Subject a little, but curious....do people who do not buy items because their animal tested not eat meat,etc?


----------



## MindySue (Mar 31, 2007)

i don't eat meat and i find it hypoctrical for people to do one or the other (if they do it for moral reasons)


----------



## Helen Claire (Mar 31, 2007)

Fact of the matter is, someone or something will need to "suffer" so that we can better understand how life works and how to heal ourselves. Should we abandon all research requiring testing on living beings? No. This would keep us from discovering new antibiotics, prevent advances in cancer treatment. We would be unable to advance human or veterinary medicine. By lack of action we would in fact cause more suffering. So the question becomes, what do we test things on? Or perhaps, what would suffer the least?

If the "humanity" of animals is up for discussion, then we'll need to start with some basic assumptions. For the sake of this argument I will choose to agree with the statements "all living beings are equal" and "all suffering is equal."

Let me imagine a situation: a child is sick with pneumonia. This disease has a variety of causes, bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, physical trauma, but in this situation we will imagine that it is a bacterial infection. Some of the bacteria that can cause pneumonia are naturally found in the intestinal tract. We will assume that one of these has caused the infection. Pneumonia causes air sacs in the lungs to fill with fluid making it difficult or impossible to breathe. Typically oral antibiotics, bed rest, and lots of fluids will be enough to get rid of the infection.

It is safe to say that pneumonia will cause suffering. Breathing is necessary to life, and difficulty perfoming this function will cause distress and therefore suffering. We have a quandary: the child suffers because the bacteria is thriving, but to lessen suffering of the child we must kill living beings. Is the life of the child more important than the life of the bacteria? If not, then it is unethical to provide antibiotics to this child because doing so will kill bacteria (living beings) even though the child will benefit. If all living beings are equal, what course of action will we choose? Is death worse than suffering? If so, the death of the bacteria is then worse than the suffering of the child. If all life is equal than this is a valid conclusion.

What is the difference between a child and a single bacterium? Complexity, size, a number of other factors. A child will react to stimuli ("This plate is hot!") as will a bacterium ("This primordial soup is hot!"). However, a child can choose to ignore stimuli and has the ability to reason ("Mom said not to touch the expensive vase but I will.") while the bacterium does not. There is an inequality in the two organisms' ability to react to their surroundings. The bacterium is a less developed form of life than the child. A human contains billions of cells; a bacterium is singular.

Does the bacterium have the ability to feel pain? It has the ability to react to stimuli both positively and negatively. It will move from an area that is too warm and will eat when it finds food. Will a bacterium react to stimuli in a way as to remain alive for as long as possible? Yes, to the extent of its ability. A human behaves similarly, though humans will not always act in such a way as to promote life. Why would a person act in a way to shorten its life? What is the difference between a human and a single-celled organism to make them act in this way?

Now, to return to the main squeeze, is all life equal? Is the suffering of bacteria being killed by antibiotics equal to the suffering of a child with pneumonia? If we are to say no, their suffering is not equal, then one being must be greater than the other. It would follow that there is a natural heirarchy among living beings. Humans have the ability to reason, bacteria do not. Which is greater?

Emanuel Kant stated that "Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity. Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations of human nature, we indirectly do our duty to humanityâ€¦. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. (Regan and Singer, 1989: 23-24)

I do not argue for irresponsible treatment of animals, but for a course of action that will most benefit us all.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should be responsible for understanding what they are buying. Consumers should understand the human and animal repercussions when they buy counterfeit goods as well as beauty products.


----------



## SalJ (Apr 3, 2007)

I try not to buy anything animal tested. I research brands before I buy anything from them and I read the labels of everything too.

I don't eat meat either.

This subject is always one that causes a debate.


----------



## MindySue (Apr 4, 2007)

Im going to be honest, I didn't/couldnt read that. It really had nothing to do with products such as toothpaste and shampoo. To save ones life with testing is a lot different than testing a deodorant. It's unessisary. I think all testing should be done on beings who are able to VOLUNTEER. Thats basically it.

oh and i didn't really want to get into a debate about it, lol


----------

